The respondent father sought leave to bring an urgent motion for access to his two children, whom he had not seen for several months, amidst a high-conflict separation.
The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, considered the definition of urgency.
While acknowledging the importance of the issues, the court declined to rule on the urgency of the motion directly.
Instead, it directed that an urgent case conference be scheduled to address the children's residence and access, with the possibility of ruling on urgency if a motion remained necessary after the conference.
